It is standard procedure to break the law, and then hope for it to be changed favorably, or pay a fine and move on. The fine is not as bad for the company as if the illegal action was not taken. In other words, do what is beneficial today and hope for a slap in the wrist if caught. The idea is to move ahead of the competitors today. The excuse is that everyone else is doing it.

Class action payouts to individuals are typically nominal, unless you're the named plaintiff, but when taken as a whole, they can be quite substantial. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the plaintiff's attorney actually sought out the plaintiff rather than the other way around.

I suspect the likely result of this case is that it will settle, plaintiffs will get a nominal payment, the parties will stipulate to some form of injunction, and Wilson in the future will refer to racquets as endorsed by Roger Federer, but not identical to the ones he plays. Which is the way it should be. .

While the class actions payouts are typically nominal, I thought they were substantial for the lawyers involved But why would a lawyer even take on this case if the most likely outcome is settle for small amount? It is it because it has the potential to be class action status?

BTW I am surprised that your polling of 50 tennis players yielded not one person that was definitively certain if pros were using paintjobs or not the racquet specified. Among my teammates, long time club players that I know, the majority were aware that the pros were using PJs not stock racquets or even stock modified. It was pretty common knowledge and only one guy posts on this forum so it was not like they were all TT members.

While the class actions payouts are typically nominal, I thought they were substantial for the lawyers involved But why would a lawyer even take on this case if the most likely outcome is settle for small amount? It is it because it has the potential to be class action status?

BTW I am surprised that your polling of 50 tennis players yielded not one person that was definitively certain if pros were using paintjobs or not the racquet specified. Among my teammates, long time club players that I know, the majority were aware that the pros were using PJs not stock racquets or even stock modified. It was pretty common knowledge and only one guy posts on this forum so it was not like they were all TT members.

Maybe they heard it from you. The players around me who know of it heard it from me, and they did not know it before. Some of them have been playing forever.

I think you are confusing Braided and Double Braided. The K6-1 Tour 90 is not Double Braided. There is no Hyper Carbon in the K6-1 Tour 90. Double Braided as Wilson defines it is: This featured layers of Graphite and Kevlar brand fibers fused to deliver exceptional feel and performance quality touch. Braided Hyper Carbon/Graphite provided additional strength to the frame, while providing constant flexibility to the racquet providing greater control.

Yes, I know there is no HyperCarbon in the K90 and I know the difference between "braided" and "double-braided". My point is that why can't you have a top layer of braided Kevlar/Graphite and a second layer of braided Karophite Black/Graphite or a second layer of braided Basalt/Graphite and also call it "double-braided"? I don't think it's written in stone anywhere that you have to have HyperCarbon for it to be called "double-braided". In any case, I'm just pointing out to AlpineCadet that you don't need to have Kevlar in two different layers for it to be "double-braided". Besides, if the K90 only has a Kevlar/Graphite braid and no other braiding, then it would have the same construction as the PS 6.0 85, which would make it more likely to have the most similar feel. This would support the theory that if Federer would only play with a new racquet if it had the same (or similar) feel to his trusted PS 6.0 85, then the retail K90 would be the most likely candidate.

It is standard procedure to break the law, and then hope for it to be changed favorably, or pay a fine and move on. The fine is not as bad for the company as if the illegal action was not taken. In other words, do what is beneficial today and hope for a slap in the wrist if caught. The idea is to move ahead of the competitors today. The excuse is that everyone else is doing it.

Standard procedure is too strong as a characterization. I have a number of corporate clients who will follow the law, even when it is not profitable to do so. I have some who will not follow the law at times because it is not profitable to do so.

Corporations, like people, come in various sizes and with various values. My previous post was only to state that some of them will ignore the law when profitable to do so, and so the publication of a marketing campaign doesn't necessarily tell us what the corporate attorneys concluded about the legality of such campaign.

Perhaps, however, because of my position on the defense side of the room, I like to think that a strong majority of corporations are law-abiding "citizens" in their dealings. A plaintiff's attorney may have a different opinion on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

While the class actions payouts are typically nominal, I thought they were substantial for the lawyers involved But why would a lawyer even take on this case if the most likely outcome is settle for small amount? It is it because it has the potential to be class action status?

BTW I am surprised that your polling of 50 tennis players yielded not one person that was definitively certain if pros were using paintjobs or not the racquet specified. Among my teammates, long time club players that I know, the majority were aware that the pros were using PJs not stock racquets or even stock modified. It was pretty common knowledge and only one guy posts on this forum so it was not like they were all TT members.

Class action cases can mean substantial payouts for the attorneys, depending on their fee agreements and the amount of work they put into the case. Like anything else, the practice of law is a business. It really comes down to the number of hours invested in a case versus the ultimate fee collected. If an attorney wins a $5 million settlement, collects 15% of the case, and spreads the other 85% among 500,000 members of the class (grossly oversimplified for purposes of this illustration), that's $750K for the firm and $8.50 per class member. Assuming the attorney hasn't dumped a number of hours into the case, as well as costs, it's probably a pretty decent hourly return.

I could get on a rant about the policies of class action suits, but it's probably best I leave that for another time and more importantly, another place. You can read about class action mechanisms and their fee arrangements here (http://abovethelaw.com/2011/11/attor...or-just-right/) if you're interested in more information.

I can't comment on whether my polling was representative of the general state of tennis knowledge. It was anecdotal, rather than scientific, but I do think it probably suggests that there is less knowledge among the buying public than there is here on TT.

This is demonstrably false. California's UCL is broadly written and can certainly include the situation you just posted. Ultimately, if the marketing claims deceived the customers into believing they were buying Roger Federer's model of the racquet, the company would be liable and would need to further define the models so that customers could differentiate between the five versions you propose.

Thanks for chiming in and taking the time to write your very informative post, and it's great to have the viewpoint of an attorney familiar with this area of the law in this thread.

Regarding your response quoted above, what if the differences between the racquet that Federer actually uses and the one sold at retail are so minute that they are essentially the same racquet? In that case, why can't Wilson just call them both "Six-One Tour 90" instead of coming up with a completely different name for the racquet that Federer actually uses? For example, what if you bought two cans of Chef Boyardee Spaghetti and Meatballs but one can had 8 meatballs while the other can only had 6 meatballs and a slightly spicier sauce? Can you sue because both cans had the same marketing name on them but the contents of each were slightly different? Or how about with cars? You can have 30 slightly different cars each equipped with different options but they are all still given the same marketing model name, such as "Chevy Malibu" or "BMW 328i".

Wilson Sporting Goods have been sued before over product claims. Wilson at one time was huge in all sports pro and amateur, then Riddel ,Rawlings, Nike, Addias ect came in and reduced there market share in there product areas,

Advertisements cease to be legit when they convince consumers to buy something on claims that are not true. 100% beef and not, used by so and so and it was not, ect.

Thanks for chiming in and taking the time to write your very informative post, and it's great to have the viewpoint of an attorney familiar with this area of the law in this thread.

Regarding your response quoted above, what if the differences between the racquet that Federer actually uses and the one sold at retail are so minute that they are essentially the same racquet? In that case, why can't Wilson just call them both "Six-One Tour 90" instead of coming up with a completely different name for the racquet that Federer actually uses? For example, what if you bought two cans of Chef Boyardee Spaghetti and Meatballs but one can had 8 meatballs while the other can only had 6 meatballs and a slightly spicier sauce? Can you sue because both cans had the same marketing name on them but the contents of each were slightly different? Or how about with cars? You can have 30 slightly different cars each equipped with different options but they are all still given the same marketing model name, such as "Chevy Malibu" or "BMW 328i".

Still waiting for an answer from you. But in response to the quoted post:

I think racquets from the same mold, with essentially the same specs can be sold under the same product name/description (like having 6 vs 8 meatballs to use your example). This is possibly the equivalent to manufacturing tolerances in regards to weight/balance.

However, racquets from the same mold, but with different lay-ups are different racquets, and should be classified as such. Different lay-ups can result in different weight distribution and/or racquet flex. These factors make the racquet perform differently despite coming from the same mold.

Still waiting for an answer from you. But in response to the quoted post:

I think racquets from the same mold, with essentially the same specs can be sold under the same product name/description (like having 6 vs 8 meatballs to use your example). This is possibly the equivalent to manufacturing tolerances in regards to weight/balance.

However, racquets from the same mold, but with different lay-ups are different racquets, and should be classified as such. Different lay-ups can result in different weight distribution and/or racquet flex. These factors make the racquet perform differently despite coming from the same mold.

Doesn't a Honda Accord with a 6-cylinder engine perform differently from one with a 4-cylinder engine? Yet, they both still use the "Honda Accord" model name.

Thanks for chiming in and taking the time to write your very informative post, and it's great to have the viewpoint of an attorney familiar with this area of the law in this thread.

Regarding your response quoted above, what if the differences between the racquet that Federer actually uses and the one sold at retail are so minute that they are essentially the same racquet? In that case, why can't Wilson just call them both "Six-One Tour 90" instead of coming up with a completely different name for the racquet that Federer actually uses? For example, what if you bought two cans of Chef Boyardee Spaghetti and Meatballs but one can had 8 meatballs while the other can only had 6 meatballs and a slightly spicier sauce? Can you sue because both cans had the same marketing name on them but the contents of each were slightly different? Or how about with cars? You can have 30 slightly different cars each equipped with different options but they are all still given the same marketing model name, such as "Chevy Malibu" or "BMW 328i".

That's an argument that I've made in court a number of times, and also one that Nike made when they were sued for misrepresentations related to Tiger's ball. Esssentially, you're arguing that any differences are merely cosmetic (or immaterial or technically superfluous or any of the other linguistic variations I've heard) and do not materially alter the product in a way that affects the performance for which the consumer purchases it.

I'm not sure your examples are great representatives of that. Assuming a consumer purchases meatballs for the taste, your examples will have different tastes; one will be meatier and with a spicier flavor, and thus the producer would need to make some distinction between them in marketing the products.

Now, let's say that the same food producer used the same number of meatballs and the same spicy sauce, but instead used two different shades of food dye in two different production batches. The dye made one can look slightly redder than the other, but the tastes of each can were identical because the material ingredients were the same. A judge is more likely to allow a producer to market them under the same label because the products will still perform the same way for the reason the consumers bought them (i.e. for the taste). Also, judges often assume that consumers are better able to perceive cosmetic differences than technical differences, and so they grant companies more leeway in those cases.

In the Wilson case, I suspect their attorneys will argue that any differences between Roger's racquet and the racquet you can buy at Sports Chalet are immaterial or perhaps even imperceptible to the consumer who plays with them. I'm not well versed on racquet technology, so I can't comment on whether that argument is accurate or not, although from my personal experience with high end golf equipment, I think it's probably a tough one to make.

Doesn't a Honda Accord with a 6-cylinder engine perform differently from one with a 4-cylinder engine? Yet, they both still use the "Honda Accord" model name.

That's getting miles off the core topic and is an example of a situation which is blatantly clear to anyone who are talk/read/listen when buying a car. They don't even need to know anything about engines - only that they're not the same.

But a car company doesn't sell them interchangeably. They sell it as a different version of the vehicle, or as an option.

But my point is that Honda does not give the 6-cylinder Accord a different model name from the 4-cylinder Accord. Both have the same model name - "Honda Accord EX-L". And the difference in performance between the racquet that Federer actually uses and the retail version is probably much less than the difference in performance between a 6-cylinder Accord and a 4-cylinder Accord. So why can't Wilson also call them both - "Wilson Six-One Tour 90"?

But my point is that Honda does not give the 6-cylinder Accord a different model name from the 4-cylinder Accord. Both have the same model name - "Honda Accord EX-L".

According to Honda the 6 cylinder version is called the "EX-L V-6" so, yes, it is a different name which is as clear on the distinction between models as the Prostaff/BLX/K.6.1 90 and 95 versions have been.

But my point is that Honda does not give the 6-cylinder Accord a different model name from the 4-cylinder Accord. Both have the same model name - "Honda Accord EX-L". And the difference in performance between the racquet that Federer actually uses and the retail version is probably much less than the difference in performance between a 6-cylinder Accord and a 4-cylinder Accord. So why can't Wilson also call them both - "Wilson Six-One Tour 90"?

I think they could sell multiple frames (from the same mold), but should identity the differences (just like vehicles do).

For example: "six.one tour", and "six.one pro tour."

A car is a bad example as some modems have a number of different options, where as a tennis racquet frame does not.

According to Honda the 6 cylinder version is called the "EX-L V-6" so, yes, it is a different name which is as clear on the distinction between models as the Prostaff/BLX/K.6.1 90 and 95 versions have been.

No, the model is still the "Accord EX-L". The "V-6" is not really part of the model name. It is a descriptor of the size of the engine. Just like you can have - "Pro Staff Six-One Tour 90 - 4 1/2" There is a separate "4 1/2" label on the racquet, just like there is a separate "V-6" label on the car.